Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 05 February 2007 11:53 am, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2007, at 17:52, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> >> As such i think it has both significant educational and commercial
> >> value.  I would like to be able to provide it free to the open source
> >> and academic communities, but i do not wish for people to be able to
> >> gain commercially from my work.
> >
> > You can't--by definition. If the license doesn't allow commercial
> > use, it isn't an Open Source license. If your license does not allow
> > commercial use, you are not sharing with the Open Source community.
>
> Emerson didn't say that he wanted it to be "Open Source."  He just
> wanted to "provide it for free."  

I will go back and read that part more carefully myself. So will this go down 
the long path ending in GIT?

> You have a point that the 
> non-commercial restriction will not make his software as useful for many
> academic and FOSS users as it would be under a genuinely Open Source of
> Free license.  

Considering Mia's comment, it might actaully make it dangerous for them.

> But he can still share his work and offer permission for 
> some uses to others.
>
> > It is very unfortunate that CC has licenses that don't allow
> > commercial use under the same brand as its licenses that follow Free
> > Software and Open Source principles. 

This I agree with and the confusion is growing. People over on youtube are 
putting non-commercial on things they refer to as copyleft. People also write 
in ways that equate all CC works as being NC works.

> > Moreover, it is very unfortunate 
> > that content licensed under these "non-commercial" licenses is
> > paraded as "Open Content" or "Open Music" and the association with
> > Open Source risks diluting the meaning of Open Source. (Likewise,
> > parading such content as "Free Culture" risks diluting the meaning of
> > Free Software.)

Indeed. People want to benefit from the buzz of open source and free software 
without being open or free (libre.)

I will again ask CC to consider a Free CC brand for those of us interested in 
Free who use CC licenses. Please CC, at least say no! Why stay silent in the 
face of numerous requests to consider this?
>
> CC offers standardized licenses for a range of permissions.  The brands
> that matter for free and open software are brands created by
> organizations devoted to copyleft principles.  

This is not true. Copyleft is a subset of Free.

> CC doesn't claim that all 
> of its licenses meet those principles.  CC doesn't use "Free Culture" to
> describe itself or its licenses.
>
> > I suggest focusing on how you can make money instead of focusing on
> > preventing others from gaining commercially.
>
> Hear hear!
>
> James

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)